Google+ Followers

Google+ Followers

Thursday, January 28, 2016

CNSNews.com) - "We have to change the tax system so that it is fairer," Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday. To her, that means taking more money from the rich and spending it on other people's college tuition, child care, and paid family leave.

"There are things we can do that will relieve the burdens on middle-class families, and the money should come from those who have it," Clinton told a gathering in Marshalltown, Iowa, Wednesday.

"I will raise your incomes, I will not raise middle-class taxes," Clinton promised.

"I do not think it is right -- (she was interrupted by applause) -- to be going to people who suffered because of the Republican recession and asking for you to help us make the investments for the future. I want you to take advantage of them, but I want to go where the money is, and the money is at the top, and that's where we need to be shifting our tax system."

In addition to closing tax "loopholes," Clinton endorsed the "Buffett rule," which says anyone who makes $1 million should have to pay a 30 percent effective tax rate.

"And then I want to go further, Clinton said. "I want to impose what I call a fair share surcharge on incomes of $5 million or more. Now, there aren't very many of those, but there's a lot of money there because I want to use that money to make college affordable.

"I want to use that money to invest in clean energy. I want to use that money to move toward paid family leave so that families get more support to be able to do their work at home and take care of their families. I want to use that money to help bring down the cost of child care, which in some states is as expensive as college tuition.

"There are things we can do that will relieve the burdens on middle-class families, and the money should come from those who have it.

She continued: "Now, people say to me, 'Well, how are we ever going to get that done?' Well, I do have a political strategy. I've seen a little bit of this in the last 20-plus years. There are not that many people who make $5 million or more in America, and I think we can make a very clear case.

Mr. Congressman over there (she was addressing State Rep. Mark Smith), are you in favor of clean energy and affordable college? Are you in favor of early childhood education and the way we're going to get it is to tax the two people in your district who make more than $5 million? Or are you going to deny that to the 350,000 people who live in your district?

"We're going to make a very tough case about why we have to make the tax code fairer. You know, you can talk about it, but I have a plan to do it. Not just a plan on the substance, but a political plan, because I want you to know what I aim to do for you and what it will cost you. And I want everybody to be able to look at that and make your own judgment."

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Police in Vermont may soon be allowed to scroll through motorists’
cell phones without a warrant to search for evidence of texting while
driving.

A 2014 state law bans the use of hand-held devices while driving, but
one lawmaker wants to strengthen the statute by giving police broader
powers during traffic stops, reported the Burlington Free Press.

LaLonde said he doesn’t want his bill to allow officers to take a
driver’s phone and rummage through the device in their squad car — but
critics of the measure say there’s little to stop police from doing just
that.

The bill is an amendment to the ban enacted two years ago, which covers all “portable electronic devices.”

Critics say LaLonde’s bill would allow police to search tablets and
laptops, in addition to phones, without obtaining a warrant during
traffic stops.

LaLonde said he hoped the measure would “thread the needle” between enforcing the ban and protecting privacy.

Studies have shown that distracted driving may be more dangerous than
drunken driving, and LaLonde said his measure is intended to crack down
on that “activity” — regardless of whether the distraction is a phone
or a tablet.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Chimel v. California that
officers may perform warrantless searches during an arrest to protect
material evidence or their own safety, but that standard doesn’t appear
to apply a driver stopped on suspicion of texting while driving.

The court also ruled in Missouri v. McNeely that police must
obtain a warrant for a blood test for drivers who are lawfully arrested
for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
That ruling suggests that drivers do not waive all their constitutional rights when they hit the road.
Chief Justice John Roberts also found in Riley v. California
that smart phones “hold for many Americans the privacies of life” — and
he suggested that privacy should be protected by the U.S. Constitution.

“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such
information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of
the protection for which the Founders fought,” Roberts ruled in that
case.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/vermont-police-could-be-allowed-to-search-drivers-phones-without-a-warrant-to-look-for-evidence-of-texting/